Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Rules and Regulations the Security Bars NPRM without additional rulemaking.
Moreover, the framework established by the Global Asylum final rule is critical to the justification for the Security Bars rule, because it would permit the Departments to remove individuals who are subject to the bars expeditiously. On the other hand, if the Departments were to implement only the remaining portions of the Security Bars rule that do not overlap with the enjoined Global Asylum final rule, the result would be the very situation that the Security Bars rule was created to remedynamely, that possibly infectious individuals would be detained or released inside the United States, potentially for a lengthy period, while awaiting their removal hearings.14
Such an outcome would frustrate the purpose of the Security Bars rule.
Additionally, to implement the full Security Bars ruleand effectively reinsert or rely upon regulatory provisions that the Pangea court has enjoinedmight run afoul of the courts injunction. Because it is impracticable and unnecessary to engage in notice and comment procedures in the limited time available while the Departments are subject to the courts injunction, the Departments are publishing this interim final rule to extend and delay the Security Bars rules effective date until December 31, 2021. Additionally, in light of the complex relationship between the Global Asylum final rule and the Security Bars rule and the implications of the Pangea litigation to the Security Bars rule, the Departments need additional time to analyze the consequences of the overlapping and embedded text and consider whether
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

14 Specifically,
the Security Bars rules regulatory provisions at 208.13c10, 208.16d2, 1208.13c10, and 1208.16d2 clarify that the danger to the security of the United States statutory bars to eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal may encompass emergency public health concerns, and do not overlap with the enjoined Global Asylum final rule. By contrast, the provisions at 208.30e5 restate and amend provisions newly adopted in the Global Asylum final rule that have been enjoined. These latter provisions would require an asylum officer to enter a negative credible fear of persecution determination with respect to an arriving aliens eligibility for asylum, allowing most aliens to whom the danger to security bar applies to be quickly removed under an order of expedited removal.
While the Departments could implement the danger to security bars to asylum and withholding of removal determinations without running afoul of the injunction of the Global Asylum final rule, they could only do so after the individual has moved past the credible fear stage of the process and has been placed into removal proceedings before an immigration judge under section 240 of the Act.
The individual would need to be either detained in a congregate setting or released inside the United States while awaiting his or her removal proceeding. This is the very situation that the Security Bars rule intended to avoid.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:10 Mar 19, 2021

Jkt 253001

policy changes are advisable and viable in light of the litigation.
If the injunction against implementation of the Global Asylum rule is lifted before December 31, the Departments will revise the effective date of the Security Bars rule as soon as possible thereafter. Similarly, if the injunction remains in effect on December 31, the Departments may delay the effective date of the Security Bars rule further. The Departments have chosen this time-limited delay, rather than an indefinite delay, due to the preliminary nature of the injunction.
III. Request for Comment on Amending or Rescinding the Security Bars Rule The Departments are further considering amending or rescinding the Security Bars rule. In particular, the Departments are considering whether to publish a new rule that would remove or revise the regulatory changes promulgated in the Security Bars rule.
In connection with that consideration, the Departments welcome data, views, and information on the best approaches for mitigating the spread of communicable disease in the operational context implicated by the Security Bars rule. The Departments are interested in information the public may have on more effective alternative approaches than that taken by the Security Bars rule, particularly in light of new or more comprehensive data.
The Departments are also reviewing the Security Bars rule in light of the Administrations policy of expanding pathways for noncitizens seeking forms of protection in the United States and removing barriers that impede access to immigration benefits, and are seeking comment on alternative approaches that may achieve the best public health outcome while remaining more consistent with that policy goal.15
Finally, the Departments welcome comment on the portions of the Global Asylum final rule that establish the framework for applying bars to asylum during credible fear processing, insofar as such comment is relevant to potential removal of or revisions to the Security Bars rule.
15 See, e.g., Executive Order 14010 of February 2, 2021, Creating a Comprehensive Regional Framework to Address the Causes of Migration, to Manage Migration Throughout North and Central America, and to Provide Safe and Orderly Processing of Asylum Seekers at the United States Border, 86 FR 8267 Feb. 5, 2021; Executive Order 14012 of February 2, 2021, Restoring Faith in Our Legal Immigration Systems and Strengthening Integration and Inclusion Efforts for New Americans, 86 FR 8277 Feb. 5, 2021.

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

15071

IV. Regulatory Requirements A. Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563
Executive Orders E.O. 12866
Regulatory Planning and Review, and 13563 Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review direct agencies to assess the costs, benefits, and transfers of available alternatives, and if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits, including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Pursuant to E.O. 12866, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget determined that this rule is significant under E.O. 12866 and has reviewed this regulation.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Departments have reviewed this rule in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., and have determined that this rule further delaying the effective date of the Security Bars rule 85 FR 84160 will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Neither the final Security Bars rule, nor this rule delaying its effective date, regulate small entities as that term is defined in 5 U.S.C. 6016. Only individuals, rather than entities, are eligible to apply for asylum and related forms of relief, and only individuals are placed in immigration proceedings.
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions are deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
D. Congressional Review Act This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Congressional Review Act CRA. 5
U.S.C. 804. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign
E:FRFM22MRR1.SGM

22MRR1